Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33460432›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Prophylactic Probiotic Supplementation for Preterm Neonates-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Studies.

Mangesh Deshmukh, Sanjay Patole

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Probiotic sepsis in preterm neonates-a systematic review.European journal of pediatrics · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Unplanned natural experiment: probiotics prevent necrotizing enterocolitis, a single center quality improvement report.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Probiotic biogeography and sepsis prevention in the neonatal intestine.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Probiotics and the Risk of Infection.Clinics in perinatology · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The impact of gut microbiota on morbidities in preterm infants.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mangesh DeshmukhDepartment of Neonatology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7485-4776
Sanjay PatoleNeonatal Directorate, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia.
St John of God Subiaco Hospital · AUThe University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that probiotics reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC ≥ Stage II), late onset sepsis (LOS), all-cause mortality, and feeding intolerance in preterm neonates. Data from observational studies is important to confirm probiotic effects in clinical practice. We aimed to compare outcomes before and after implementing routine probiotic supplementation (RPS) in preterm neonates (<37 weeks of gestation) by performing a systematic review of non-RCTs using Cochrane methodology. Databases including PubMed, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Central library, and Google Scholar were searched in May 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Categorical measure of effect size was expressed as OR and 95% CI. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by the chi-squared test, I2 statistic. The level of evidence (LOE) was summarized using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. Primary outcomes were NEC ≥ Stage II, LOS, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included probiotic sepsis. Thirty good-quality non-RCTs (n = 77,018) from 18 countries were included. The meta-analysis showed RPS was associated with significantly reduced: 1) NEC ≥ Stage II (30 studies, n = 77,018; OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.73; P <0.00001, I2: 65%; LOE: Moderate), 2) LOS: (21 studies, n = 65,858; OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.97; P = 0.02, I2: 74%; LOE: Low), and 3) all-cause mortality (27 non-RCTs, n = 70,977; OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.88; P = 0.0001, I2: 49%; LOE: Low). Subgroups: 1) extremely low birth weight (ELBW: birth weight <1000 g) neonates: RPS was associated with significantly reduced NEC ≥ Stage II (4.5% compared with 7.9%). However, there was no difference in LOS and mortality. 2) Multistrain RPS was more effective than single strain. One study reported 3 nonfatal cases of probiotic sepsis. In summary, moderate- to low-quality evidence indicates that RPS was associated with significantly reduced NEC ≥ Stage II, LOS, and all-cause mortality in neonates <37 weeks of gestation and NEC ≥ Stage II in ELBW neonates.

Indexed as

Enterocolitis, NecrotizingInfant, Premature, DiseasesProbioticsSepsisHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Prematurenecrotizing enterocolitisneonatesoutcomespreterm infantprobioticsvery low birth weight

Identifiers

PMID33460432
PMCPMC8321836
OpenAlexW3121383331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.